President Jimmy Carter is often known for his kind nature. Carter focused heavily on diplomatic solutions to problems during his presidency and seemed to take great care on issues that impacted American citizens. He and his late wife Rosalynn Carter even built homes with Habitat for Humanity well into their 90s. Since the former president passed away December 29, people have been reminiscing on his legacy of kindness with one of the stories being about the Carters' fight to employ a convicted felon as a nanny.Before Carter was president he served as the governor of Georgia, which is where he and Rosalynn met Mary Prince Fitzpatrick, an inmate convicted of murder. The woman, who later returned to her maiden name, was working on an inmate release program when she became a nanny for the Carters' youngest child, Amy. As the small family got to know Prince, they found that she was wrongly convicted of the serious crime based on seemingly inadequate legal representation. Rosalynn details in her 1984 memoir that Prince's court appointed attorney "persuaded her to plead guilty to a murder she hadn’t committed. She was young, Black and penniless, so she did as he told her and got a life sentence in prison.” File:Amy Carter playing on the White House grounds with Mary ... commons.wikimedia.org According to an interview with People in 1977, Prince was out on the town with her cousin who got into an argument with another woman and pulled out a gun. Prince says she attempted to wrestle the gun away from the two women when the firearm went off, killing the male companion of the woman her cousin was in an altercation with. She fully denies anything intentional and claims to have believed the plea she was signing was for involuntary manslaughter.Prince worked for Jimmy and Rosalynn the entire time they were in the governor's mansion becoming close with the family. So much so that Amy reportedly screamed when Prince had to return to prison unable to move to the White House with them. Prince was left to face a life sentence for a crime in which she was wrongly convicted. This was the catalyst for the Carters push for Prince to come to D.C. and for her case to be reexamined. File:Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter kissing at the Democratic National ... commons.wikimedia.org The nanny explains to People, "When I left Amy really screamed. Later Mrs. Carter would come and see me at the Fulton County Jail and the Atlanta Work Release Center, where I went as a cook in 1975.”After being faced with leaving their beloved nanny behind, fully believing in her innocence, Jimmy formally requested to be assigned as her parole officer after Rosalynn petitioned for her release. The parole board agreed which allowed Prince to move to D.C. to continue working, this time at the White House. Once the Carters' finished their time in D.C., the family resettled back in their hometown in Plains, Georgia and Prince moved just a few blocks away continuing to care for the Carters children and grandchildren.This story of fierce advocacy and kindness is making the rounds on social media with people in awe of the kind of people the Carters were. @dannyfcollins ♬ original sound - Danny Collins One person shares, "The Carters are EASILY the best humans that’ve ever held those positions. What a dreadful birthday “present”, absolutely crushing, even after such an amazing life.""Jimmy Carter was a real one, he was one of the only Christians I've ever seen walk the walk," another says."The more I find out about him the more I love him," someone else writes. Prince was eventually exonerated of her charges when the case was reviewed and remained close with the Carters for the remainder of their lives.

A defining anthem. The post ‘Heroin’: the understated brilliance of the music in The Velvet Underground classic first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

I was going to write this column yesterday, mere hours after a radicalized jihadist Muslim drove a Ford Lightning pickup truck through a semi-crowded Bourbon Street New Year’s revelry in New Orleans, killing 15 and injuring 30. I couldn’t do it. For two reasons. First, the information available mere hours after such an event is notoriously unreliable and cannot be sufficient as a base for any real analysis. There is no credibility left in that agency. It shouldn’t be the lead investigative agency on major terrorist events ever again. And second, I was simply too pissed off to write something useful. Those of us hailing from the Big Easy are used to tragedies. They’re commonplace in New Orleans. There’s always a terrible story someone has to tell — the freewheeling lifestyle leads to accidents, bad health outcomes, unhappy family life and other sad results, though few who live here would change much about the soulful life in South Louisiana. And that doesn’t take into account the toll things like hurricanes and the quality of the local leadership will inflict on the people of that area. We see tragedies. We’re experts in tragedy. What happened in the early hours of New Year’s Day on Bourbon Street was not a tragedy. It was an outrage. An atrocity. The tragedy came later. Shamsud-Din Jabbar, an Army veteran, real estate broker, and six-figure Deloitte consultant from Houston who was somehow dead broke and had burned through two marriages on his way to finding jihadist Islam, seems to fit a common pattern of having a life which made absolutely zero sense. He’d been working as an IT specialist at Deloitte since 2021, making some $120,000 per year, and yet Jabbar was living in a rundown trailer in a lousy part of Houston with goats and chickens skulking about the property. Within walking distance of Jabbar’s home was Masjid Bilal, a somewhat notorious mosque which, mere hours following Jabbar’s terrorist act, put out a communique to its members directing them to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement or the media (not altogether unreasonable) and to direct all inquiries to CAIR (massive red flag). We don’t know that Masjid Bilal was the mosque which radicalized Jabbar. It’s fair to say the imam there was insufficiently influential in turning him away from violence. And everyone in his neighborhood was shocked — shocked! — that he would go off on such a rampage. Yes, of course. You’re all very shocked. Because if you weren’t shocked, that would mean you might have the blood of his victims on your hands. And while we don’t do collective guilt in this country, woke denunciations of straight white men notwithstanding, those members of his family and mosque who saw him descend into darkness can’t plausibly claim they couldn’t see where this was leading. What Jabbar did wasn’t tragic. It was outrageous. The tragedy came when the Federal Bureau of Investigation alighted onto the scene. In the early hours of New Year’s Day, a press conference was called. There, New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell and Anne Kirkpatrick, the city’s police chief, were joined by FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Alethea Duncan. The latter, a rather distracting stud protruding from the side of her nose, proceeded to contradict the mayor by denying that what Jabbar had done was to commit a terrorist act. Hold up. An FBI Agent with a nose ring who can barely speak coherent English sentences told the media that a terrorist driving a truck with an ISIS flag killing 10 Americans is NOT a terrorist attack!?! Seriously. listen to this We need Kash Patel NOW!pic.twitter.com/v2sjeJ2bcH — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) January 1, 2025 This, hours after the FBI had gained possession of the ISIS flag Jabbar had proudly displayed from a pole attached to the truck’s trailer hitch as he mowed down the unbelievers. The time for downplaying terrorism as a cause of the event had long past, and yet the clear DEI hire was still flogging away at the standard narrative. Duncan then appeared at another press avail, minus the nose ring, and backtracked to say that yes, it was a terrorist attack. She further said, “We do not believe that Jabbar was solely responsible” for the attack. And officials representing the city, state, and federal government explained that a manhunt was underway for Jabbar’s confederates while the Sugar Bowl, which was to take place in the Superdome not very far from Bourbon Street, would be postponed until Thursday afternoon. But then on Thursday morning the FBI was represented at a press conference not by Duncan but by an authoritative white man from Washington named Christopher Raia, of the FBI’s counterterrorism division, who announced that the FBI’s latest judgment was that Jabbar had acted alone. Raia cited videos made by Jabbar in the minutes before the attack as evidence for the contention this was a lone-wolf affair. Surveillance footage of ice-cooler bombs left in multiple locations around New Orleans’ French Quarter, he said, indicated those were planted by Jabbar and not other individuals as was previously believed. And this was treated with relief by the city and state officials at that press briefing, because if Jabbar acted alone and he was dead, well, then there was nothing left for the tourist paradise of New Orleans to do but to hold jazz funerals for the dead after putting on a big party at the Sugar Bowl. And to toast Christopher Raia of the FBI for solving both the problem of Agent Nosering and her nonexistent credibility and the public’s angst at the idea an active jihadist plot to cause mayhem among tourists would turn New Orleans into a ghost town after working hours. Except nothing about this passes the smell test. The quotable and irascible Sen. John Kennedy, who was on hand for the press conferences on New Year’s Day, sounded a very skeptical tone at the outset of the investigation and indicated he believed Jabbar’s rampage was part of something bigger. “There’s a lot of information going around. Some of it is actually true. Some of it isn’t,” Kennedy said at a press conference with law enforcement Wednesday afternoon. “Here’s what I want to ask from the federal government: Catch these people and then tell the American people the truth. Now, I don’t want you to tell us yet anything is going to interfere with the investigation. And there are things that I’ve been told that I think are true that I’m not sharing with you today because it could interfere with their investigation,” he went on. “But after we get to the bottom of this, they need to tell the American people the truth, and the people in New Orleans the truth, and the people of America the truth.” Kennedy also warned: “I will promise you this: I will, when it is appropriate in this investigation is complete, you will find out what happened and who was responsible, or I will raise fresh hell and I will chase those in the federal government who are responsible for telling us what happened like they stole Christmas.” Less than a day later Jabbar “acted alone” and Bourbon Street was back open for business in time for the Sugar Bowl. Acting ‘Alone’ in New Orleans? And you’re to believe that a man who had so butchered his personal and professional life that he was keeping company with goats and chickens while babbling about the war between “believers and unbelievers” had … Procured two separate firearms, a Glock 9 millimeter pistol and a .308 rifle both reported stolen in separate states; Rented a Ford Lightning EV pickup truck perfect for the purpose of the attack given its weight and acceleration; Rented an AirBnb in the St. Roch neighborhood near to Bourbon Street which magically caught fire a couple of hours following his attack; Assembled and placed explosive devices along what might have been the route of his escape from Bourbon Street, one of which was near the St. Louis Cathedral; and Drove around making and posting something of a video manifesto proclaiming his allegiance to ISIS just before barreling through the crowd on Bourbon Street. This would make Jabbar out to be a stunningly competent terrorist. Except he really wasn’t. Jabbar bypassed the New Orleans Police SUV which was parked sideways across Bourbon Street to block vehicle traffic; he just jumped the curb and drove on the sidewalk before pushing the pedal to the metal and beginning his rampage. But why did he wait until 3 in the morning to kick off the attack? By then, most of the revelers had decamped for their hotel rooms and for home. Bourbon Street on New Year’s Eve is a sea of humanity packed so tightly it’s somewhat difficult to move around in until 1:30 or 2:00 a.m.; after that, the crowd begins to peter out. Not to mention that he managed to crash the truck into a portable crane parked on the street just a couple of blocks from the beginning of his rampage, something which prevented him from killing lots of other innocents. He could have killed 150, or even 1500, instead of 15, had he gone in earlier. And almost anyone would have figured this out during the planning of the attack. But not Shamsud Din Jabbar, the lone wolf terrorist mastermind who acted alone. How plausible is this? Is it more plausible that someone radicalized him, supplied him, gave him a prime-quality jihadist blueprint to work from and set him off on his bloody errand, and he managed to botch the execution of the plan just as he botched his life? What say you, Christopher Raia? And what say you, Sen. Kennedy? Will you raise that fresh hell you promised now that the FBI has demanded you buy their tragic pig in a poke? There is no credibility left in that agency. It shouldn’t be the lead investigative agency on major terrorist events ever again. READ MORE from Scott McKay: Five Quick Things: The EOY 5QT Biden: Commutations For Murderers, Persecutions For Normal Americans The post An Outrage, and Then a Tragedy, in New Orleans appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

And there they go again. News arrives as follows, this headline from The Hill but one on the subject: Biden to award Liz Cheney and others with Presidential Citizens Medal The story reports: President Biden will award the Presidential Citizens Medal to 20 individuals at the White House on Thursday, including former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who has been an outspoken critic of President-elect Trump and some of his allies. The medal is awarded to U.S. citizens who have “performed exemplary deeds of service for their country or their fellow citizens,” the White House said in announcing the recipients. Cheney will be honored for her service in Congress and on the special House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and for speaking out about the importance of democracy. Cheney campaigned with Vice President Harris ahead of November’s election. Biden has spoken with aides about the prospect of a pardon for Cheney and other Trump critics to protect them against potential politically motivated charges. Biden will also give the medal to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who served as chair of the Jan. 6 committee.” In response, over there at Mediaite was this headline: ‘This Is Repulsive’: Fox’s Brit Hume Rips Biden For Awarding Liz Cheney With Presidential Citizens Medal The longtime Fox anchor tweeted his reaction, saying: This is repulsive. That investigation was done by a committee all of whose members were chosen by Nancy Pelosi, and was produced like a TV show. There was no cross examination of witnesses. The media fell for it, but it was utterly one-sided. A show trial. Bingo. Brit Hume got it exactly right. In fact, Cheney’s behavior as the GOP ranking member of the January 6th Committee was, if anything, reminiscent of the days in the 1950’s when Wisconsin Republican Senator Joe McCarthy was conducting a congressional investigation into alleged “Communists in government,” the Committee and its chairman running a show trial of wild allegations that came to be labeled in history as “McCarthyism.” (And for those unfamiliar with that term, the Encyclopedia Britannica defines McCarthyism this way: The term has since become a byname for defamation of character or reputation by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations, especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges. Make no mistake. Liz Cheney’s conduct — and that of her Committee GOP soulmate then-Congressman Adam Kinzinger, became a politically weaponized assault organized by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was Pelosi who appointed all Committee members from both sides of the House political divide, setting up a result that trashed Trump at every turn, with no dissent allowed. It was a decided assault on the very basics of the Constitution. Just as Brit Hume says, it was — literally — produced as a TV show, the Committee bringing in the former president of ABC News, James Goldston. Again, Hume’s point: “There was no cross examination of witnesses. The media fell for it, but it was utterly one-sided. A show trial.” Indeed. Cheney’s Comeuppance This was not lost on Cheney’s Wyoming constituents, who rejected her bid for re-nomination by defeating her in the GOP primary with Harriet Hageman. Cheney’s obsession — and obsession it was — with getting Donald Trump ultimately backfired, and backfired badly. In fact, after watching Cheney’s behavior on the Committee and the behavior of the entire Committee and the left-wing media that lavished it with attention, not only did her own disgusted constituents turn her out of office, Americans went to the polls in November and re-elected Trump in a landslide. The bottom line: The American Left, whether handholding with Liz Cheney on the January 6 Committee or running the country, is at bottom an authoritarian party that has nothing but contempt for the Constitution. And for that, President Joe Biden rewards Cheney with the “Presidential Citizens Medal” — a decided and all too obvious contradiction in terms. One could say “shame” — but this President and Liz Cheney have none for the betrayal of the Constitution exhibited by the January 6th Committee. READ MORE from Jeffrey Lord: If Not Speaker Johnson — Who? The Trumpian Future Beckons for America The post Biden Rewards Liz Cheney for Betraying the Constitution appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

At this point, you may have seen the Vatican’s recently unveiled mascot for the 2025 Jubilee Year. She’s a brightly colored anime figurine in a yellow rain jacket with sky blue hair and colored rosary beads around her neck. She looks like a kid’s toy and her name is Luce.  She’s been the object of so much controversy since the Vatican unveiled her earlier this week at a press conference that she’s just about eclipsed the fact that the Synod on Synodality is finally over (for now). The idea is that Luce will symbolize faith and hope (especially for young Catholics) during the coming year and that she will reach “new generations and [promote] intergenerational dialogue.”  NO https://t.co/zWSGpteULx — Become A Saint (@BeSaintly) October 28, 2024 To be perfectly fair to the bright-eyed bouncy anime mascot and her friends, a lot of thought clearly went into her design. The shells in her eyes are supposed to be reminiscent of the scallop shell used to denote pilgrims on the Camino de Santiago and the rosary around her neck is Fulton Sheen’s Mission Rosary.  If what inspires the modern world to pursue holiness is pop art and anime, that’s unfortunate, but so be it. That all said, there are, of course, a variety of problems with Luce. The use of an anime-style mascot, indeed the use of a mascot at all, infantilizes religion — not to mention, it’s hardly the art we should expect from the Church that inspired Michelangelo and Rafael. Ignoring all that, the illustrator commissioned to do the work is widely known for his work on gay pride art and sex toys.  Catholic Vote reported that Simone Legno, the Italian illustrator the Vatican hired to design Luce, is also the artist behind the Tokidoki brand and his work has been connected “to gay pride events and a line of adult-themed sexual products.” It’s not totally clear that Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the ecclesiastic in charge of organizing the Jubilee, was aware of Legno’s past work — Legno is a bit more famous for his collaborations with Marvel, Hello Kitty, and the Guggenheim Museum — but it seems like something Vatican officials would want to vet for. It’s not that artists engaged in Catholic art have to be saints (Caravaggio famously wasn’t), but perhaps we should consider the public work of an artist before hiring him to create a children’s toy.  Unfortunately, it seems that in the desire to engage in “the pop culture so beloved by our young people,” someone missed making a note of the more degenerate side of Legno’s career.  That leads us to the all-important questions being debated online: Should the Vatican even try to engage in pop culture? Is doing so out of touch with the generation of Catholics coming of age in this first quarter of the 21st century?  From one point of view, Catholic pop art isn’t all bad. Catholic art has the very difficult task of directing our minds and hearts towards the infinite source of all truth, goodness, and beauty — namely God — but ours is a faith of condescension. God condescended to become man, and it seems fair to expect our art could condescend to meet us where we are. If what inspires the modern world to pursue holiness is pop art and anime, that’s unfortunate, but so be it. One hopes that eventually the modern Catholic would be increasingly drawn to the more beautiful and elegant art of his ancestors as his spiritual life matured. The thing is, however, it seems that young people are increasingly searching for a faith that’s different from the modern world of pop art and mascots they find themselves in. They don’t want to be sold on their faith, they want to be conquered and challenged by it.  That’s not to say that there won’t be young people attracted by Luce — even a curmudgeon has to admit she’s kinda cute — but it is to say that she may be more out of touch with the youth of this age than Vatican officials realize. By choosing to adopt a bright-eyed mascot to guide the faithful through the very serious business of a Jubilee Year (namely pursuing repentance, personal conversion, and greater personal sanctity), Catholics might just end up feeling like the Vatican is treating them like children who aren’t capable of anything more than a cartoon.  Besides her somewhat questionable author, that is really the problem with Luce. Arguably, what our society needs at this moment is not something encouraging it to continue with its childish ways, but rather something urging it to put aside the things of a child and take on the things of adulthood. That’s a task Luce doesn’t seem ready to take on.  READ MORE from Aubrey Gulick: Disney’s Snow White Is Well on Its Way to Disaster at the Box Office Have a Jolly Good Christmas The post Let’s Talk About the Catholic Mascot, Luce appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On December 11, 2024, The Wall Street Journal published an article by Professor Perry Link of the University of California, Riverside (UCR), revealing his persecution by university leadership for expressing dissenting views. This troubling case sheds light on a broader issue: the ideological rigidity of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement and its unsettling resemblance to Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in China, a period I personally experienced. While they may seem well-intentioned, these policies can erode institutional integrity and perpetuate inefficiency. A couple of years ago, while serving on a faculty search committee, Professor Link objected to prioritizing a candidate’s race over academic qualifications. In an email, he described a Black applicant as “lively and charming—and yes, Black, which is great—but I can’t say that I found his sophistication and experience up to the level of our top candidates.” He argued against making race the “overriding criterion,” stating that it was unfair to more qualified candidates and did not serve the university’s mission of excellence. This dissent sparked severe repercussions. UCR leadership accused Professor Link of violating DEI principles, specifically of discrimination and making “adverse and unwarranted comments about the race, gender, or national origin of the candidate pool.” Punishments included barring him from serving on search committees, salary reductions, and potential termination. These actions starkly contradict the essence of diversity, which should encourage the free expression of differing views. Instead, UCR’s leadership punished Professor Link for upholding academic integrity. Professor Link’s distinguished career further underscores the absurdity of these charges. He taught at Princeton University, where I was a student at the time. I loved listening to his public lectures and chatting with him. A lifelong advocate for universal human rights, he was blacklisted by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for exposing its oppression. For UCR to label him a racist is both baseless and ironic. DEI’s Roots in Marxism The ideological roots of DEI can be traced to Marxism, which centers on class struggle and economic inequality. Marxism divides society into two classes — the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (workers) — and advocates for redistributing resources to dismantle class hierarchies. While Marxism failed disastrously in practice, its emphasis on rectifying systemic inequality resonates with DEI’s focus on race, gender, and identity categories. Yet, policies rooted in identity traits risk fostering the same inefficiencies and injustices that plagued Marxist regimes. Just as Mao’s Cultural Revolution used class background as a primary metric for advancement, DEI initiatives prioritize identity over merit. As someone who grew up in China during Mao’s Cultural Revolution in the 1970s, I witnessed firsthand the consequences of ideological conformity. Mao demanded ideological purity and unwavering loyalty to his vision. My father, Li Honglin, and his superior, Tian Jiaying, were officials within the Maoist system. Unfortunately, they retained some degree of independent thinking, which led to persecution by Mao and his allies. My father was imprisoned, and Tian Jiaying committed suicide before he could be arrested. As Professor Link mentioned in his article, the reason he was severely punished was not only because he expressed differing opinions, but more importantly, because “I didn’t bend. To the machine, that was more offensive than the original affront.” The CCP has a similar policy: “Leniency to those who confess, severity to those who resist.” Mao allocated resources based on “class” rather than competence. Workers, peasants, and soldiers were promoted to important positions and admitted to universities. For instance, Mao handpicked Wu Guixian, a female textile worker, to be a Vice Premier of China simply because of her proletarian background, not her qualifications. She was put in charge of the Ministry of Health. In one widely circulated story, during a meeting with a foreign delegation, a representative praised the legendary Ming dynasty doctor Li Shizhen. Vice Premier Wu Guixian turned to an aide and asked, “Has Dr. Li been invited to this meeting?” At Peking University, which I entered after Mao’s death in 1978, the 1975 and 1976 cohorts of worker-peasant-soldier students included some who lacked basic literacy skills and could not even write a simple letter home. These policies not only damaged institutions but also placed unprepared individuals in positions of responsibility, setting them up for failure. Similarly, DEI initiatives that prioritize identity traits over merit risk similar outcomes. While they may seem well-intentioned, these policies can erode institutional integrity and perpetuate inefficiency. Equity should help people of lower socio-economic status to level the playing field, not artificially make the results uniform, which not only stifles excellence and fairness but leads to poor service for society. DEI advocates who don’t see the danger in this should think about how DEI activists act in their personal lives. When DEI advocates face critical decisions — such as choosing a surgeon or a pilot — do they prioritize competence, or the “correct” physiological traits? To ask the question is to answer it. READ MORE from Shaomin Li: The Chinese Model’s Challenge to the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics The Third Plenary Session of the CCP Failed Shaomin Li is a Professor at Old Dominion University. The post DEI and Marxism Destroy Merit and Excellence appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

With the ringing in of 2025, a new chapter begins for America. The start of a new administration under Donald Trump, along with the promise of DOGE with Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk at the helm, may have us believing that the time for accountable governance and a return to our constitutional order is ahead. But such sentiment is unfounded. Polling done by Trafalgar Group has shown that there is wide bipartisan consensus for an Article V Convention. Trump isn’t in office yet, and his ideas are already being shot down. Congress has passed its spending bill, one that rejected conservative efforts to limit federal spending, despite Vivek’s and Elon’s personal efforts in lobbying House Republicans. Further, not all Republicans are in lock step with Trump’s proposals, regardless of their majorities in the House and Senate. And though DOGE’s and Trump’s promises for a brighter future have legitimate standing, they are merely temporary fixes that can be easily undone. The key for restraining the federal government’s growth and for restoring America’s constitutional order lies within our very Constitution: an Article V Convention of States. Understanding Article V Before considering the case for an Article V Convention, it is vital to understand what it is. Article V provides two methods for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The first is when Congress can propose amendments, defined as “whenever two thirds of both houses [House and Senate] shall deem it necessary.” In turn, those amendments then must be ratified by three quarters of the states (38 states to pass). This method has been the only one practiced since America’s founding. The second method occurs when “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” An Article V Convention is called when 34 states have all passed a similar resolution (called an “application”) by their state legislatures. The convention then drafts amendments, debates, and votes on what amendments to propose, which are limited by the scope of the convention. After the convention, the proposed amendments must be ratified by 38 states. (Click here for an excellent explanation of the full process by former Senator Jim DeMint.) The Misleading Critics of Article V While some believe that an Article V Convention should be called, others claim that it would be a dangerous endeavor. Groups as different as the John Birch Society and Common Cause have become vocal opponents of an Article V Convention. A common criticism is that such a convention would lead to a “runaway convention” that will somehow bring about an end to our freedoms and the republic itself. Some fear an effort to call forth a “Constitutional Convention” that would replace America’s government with something worse. Those claims are deeply problematic, for these reasons: First, the Article V process itself already sets limits on the behavior of the convention. Constitutional scholar Robert G. Natelson clarifies that the limits on delegates would be no different than that of prior interstate conventions. Natelson states: “Universal pre-constitutional practice tells us that states may select, commission, instruct, and pay their delegates as they wish, and may alter their instructions and recall them.” This means that if a certain delegate decided to go rogue, then the state legislature could recall the delegate and send someone else who would follow established rules. Since state legislatures would have full control over their delegates, as well as amendments being restricted by the scope of the convention, the possibility of a rogue convention is highly doubtful. Second, legal scholars recognize that an Article V Convention is a legitimate method. In 2014, a group of such scholars, which included several convention skeptics, signed what is called the Jefferson Statement where they unanimously agreed that the option of an Article V convention is “safe, effective, and necessary.” Constitutional scholar Nick Dranias wrote that the “runaway convention” myth falls flat when looking at the precedent of other interstate conventions as well as the clarity of Article V when examined by U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Many of the anti-Article V Convention talking points have been debunked by prominent legal and constitutional scholars. Third and most important, critics fail to recognize the very wisdom of America’s Framers — the men who conceived the idea of a convention. Some critics have claimed that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, including James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton, opposed such a method. This is false. Hamilton argued in favor of an Article V Convention in Federalist No. 85, stating, “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.” John Jay was a strong proponent of a convention when he sought to address the concerns of the Anti-Federalists, resulting in the Massachusetts Compromise. James Madison in Federalist No. 43 states that Article V “equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors.” Madison reinforced his support of such a convention in his August 28, 1830 letter to Edward Everett. In sum, the Framers saw an Article V Convention as a necessary means for the people and states to stop encroachments on their freedoms by an abusive federal government. The truth is that these narratives against Article V were built upon falsehoods created by power-hungry progressives. As Natelson notes, progressives fear that such a convention would result in amendments that would restrict their power. And unfortunately, these falsehoods have misinformed many conservatives. Why an Article V Convention is the Solution So, why should the states now call for an Article V Convention? It has become obvious that despite who we send to Congress or the White House, the federal government has gone rogue and remains rogue. Regardless of which party is in charge, Washington is not going to stop itself from abusing, exploiting, and profiting from its power. Those in power cannot stop themselves. The Framers feared precisely such tyranny. George Mason, during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, said that “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive.” The Framers also knew that should the federal government abuse its power, the solution would lie within the people and states to restore the nation’s constitutional order. That very wisdom has been carried on and called upon by those who believed in the Framers’ wisdom, including President Ronald Reagan, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and President Dwight Eisenhower. Prominent figures who today have come out in favor of an Article V Convention include Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Vice President-Elect JD Vance, Senator Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth. The time has come to realize that the only way We the People are going to fix and restore our constitutional order is by calling an Article V Convention. The structural changes that we need to curb federal abuses — such as congressional term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and amendments limiting the scope of federal authority — can only be achieved by bypassing the federal government itself. Polling done by Trafalgar Group has shown that there is wide bipartisan consensus for an Article V Convention. At the end of the day, this problem is not a matter of red vs. blue, rural vs. urban, or rich vs. poor, but freedom vs. tyranny. We might not all agree on every policy matter or issue, but we can agree that to ensure the very freedoms we enjoy, we must rein in the federal government. Sure, a Convention of States and the ratification of any proposed amendments would not be the complete solution. It would, however, be a leap in the right direction. READ MORE from Hunter Oswald: Remembering the Christmas Truce of 1914 Ohio Protects Girls From Boys Who Want to Use Their Bathroom The post Restoring America’s Constitutional Order: Article V appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Dr. Jane Ruby: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mark Tapson, FrontPage Mag: [Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.] Details about the New Year’s morning terror attack in New Orleans are still coming out, of course, but before the misinformation of the […]